WARNING LONG POST DUE TO IN-DEPTH JUSTIFICATION: I was just curious if anyone knows, without starting a flame war please, why Ubuntu went with the default partitioning scheme they did?
It seems to me, that especially with the demographic that Ubuntu professes to be targeting, a more sophisticated default partitioning layout would have made sense. I realize that everyone has their idea of the "perfect partitioning scheme", but the one partition and a swap seems poorly designed for the demographic targeted. As a consultant, when dealing with non-Linux savvy clients, I try to follow a pattern to find areas of potential runaway growth, and isolate them for the end users own good. For reference, here is my decision tree: My first partition is Windows if it will be installed on the system. This way, no matter what I do with partitions in Linux, the Windows C: remains fixed. Next, I set up a swap partition equal to 4X memory. I know that 2X is traditional, but rarely have I ever had a machine that did not end up with more memory at the end if its life, than it started with. Plan for growth, and don't be surprised by it, I always say. Next, I set up a boot sector. Traditionally I used to set these up at 256MB, and that is still fine, but with the larger kernel and hard drives of today, I usually set this up at 512MB. I set up the /boot completely as a CYA move, and it is not mounted by default on Debian and Red Hat/Suse systems, but are on Ubuntu systems (Ubuntu does kernel upgrades in its package management systems, while most systems configure these to not automatically update). Bottom line, if anything bad happens, an expert (such as myself) has a jumping in point to fix any problems. Next I set up my root partition. Based upon the type of system, I configure a percentage and fixed max. For Ubuntu is 20% of the drive or 20GB, whichever is smaller (RH/Suse have so much junk, this is doubled for those systems). This partition is so critical, it can not fill up, period. And, for the most part, does not grow much. Now comes my highly volatile areas. I like to keep logs on a separate partition. I have seen these fill with stupid stuff, both done by the end user, and done by hacking attempts. Again, a percentage and fixed max system is used. Generally 5% of the drive or 5GB, whichever is smaller. If I have more than 2GB of RAM, I will mount my /tmp directory as tmpfs. If this account uses system login users (i.e. a desktop, SSH server to supply shell accounts, file server, etc) where the user accounts are obtainable from an OS level service such as /etc/passwd or LDAP, I set up a /home partition. You haven't lived until you go out to rescue a machine where the end user ran out of hard drive because they have 4 different full system backups of their old Windows system stored there. End users do silly things. They fill their hard drives with You-Tube videos, and music despite being against corporate policy. They store 18 versions of the same powerpoint file, etc. When /home fills two things can happen... if it is on its own partition, the user is told they can not save any files. If /home is part of the root partition, it bricks your system. Some systems either have unnamed users (anonymous FTP; http; printer queues), or users without system accounts (Cyrus IMAP; Database; CRM) where no /home directory is appropriate. This data should be stored in /srv. Again, all the above gottchas apply as with /home. Generally a system will have a need for either /home or /srv. In some cases both (A web developer may have is own web server, database, etc to run tests of code before committing to the corporate wide resource). This is much harder to do in a script, so my examples below assume Ubuntu server means /srv is needed for its primary user, and Ubuntu Desktop means /home is needed for its primary use. As an additional safety catch I subtract 10% or 10GB from the entire disk, whichever is greater, that I leave unallocated. I then allocate 10% or 10GB for the lesser use above, and the remainder of the drive for the majority use above. Examples: Mail server with Postfix, Courier IMAP, Centralized accounts, no local login accounts, no Windows, 4GB Ram and 500GB of drive space. sda1 -> SWAP -> 16GB (remainder 484GB) sda2 -> /boot -> 512MB (remainder 483.5GB) sda3 -> / -> 20GB (20%=100GB, remainder 463.5GB) dsa5 -> /var/log -> 5GB (5% = 25GB, remainder 458.5GB) sda6 -> /home -> 10GB (secondary use, remainder 448.5GB) sda7 -> /srv -> 398.5GB (primary use, remainder 50GB) /tmp configured as tmpfs Desktop user, local logins, no windows, 2GB Ram and 180GB hard drive. sda1 -> SWAP -> 8GB (remainder 172GB) sda2 -> /boot -> 512MB (remainder 171.5GB) sda3 -> / -> 20GB (20%=36GB, remainder 151.5GB) sda5 -> /var/log -> 5GB (5%=9GB, remainder 146.5GB) sda6 -> /home -> 118.5GB(primary use, remainder 28GB) sda7 -> /srv -> 10GB (secondary use, remainder 18GB) As a non-Linux user interacts with the system, all the area that can cause problems are isolated from areas that can make the system to be unbootable. Especially with noobs, this layout seems to make more sense to me. It has self preservation built in. While I realize some may think my layout is overkill, and that is not the point. I give this as an example of a layout that is easily calculated, protects the end users data, and important settings, and provides hooks to allow real propeller heads like myself to come in and rescue in case of real disaster. If you use partition labels, Ubuntu should even be able to identify a /home and /srv partition from an early install, and attempt to protect data across a complete reinstall! I guess after this long explanation is... is there a reason that Ubuntu, given its target on noobs, did not adopt a more protective partitioning scheme like this? And more importantly, should we? -- Kevin Fries Senior Linux Engineer Computer and Communications Technology, Inc A Division of Japan Communications Inc. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
